Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-07-1994 CITY COUNCIL AGENDASARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: September 7, 1994 AGENDA ITEM -7A CITY MGR. APPROVA� ORIGINATING DEPT, City Manager's Office Paula Reeve, Public Services Assistant SUBJECT: An Ordinance Amending Article 10 -10 of the City Code Relating to Special Event Permits. Recommended Motion: Introduce by title only, waiving reading in full. Report Summary: The proposed revisions to Article 10 -10 of the City Code pertaining to Special Event Permits include authorizing the City Manager to receive; issue, and revoke special event permits as necessary. The required filing date in advance of the event will also be shortened from ninety to forty days. Prior to the proposed revisions, the Community Services Director received the application and the City Council granted final permit approval. The term Community Services Director will be deleted from the ordinance and replaced with the words City Manager, as the position of Community Services Director no longer exists. Allowing the permit approval process to be handled at the staff level will expedite the process and preclude drafting reports to Council. This will also save the Council's time because many of these events are routine matters which take place annually. Fiscal Impacts: None Attachments: Proposed ordinance relating to Special Event Permits Motion and Vote: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2-4gl AGENDA ITEM 7F MEETING DATE: Sept. 7, 1994 CITY MGR. AW ORIGINATING DEPT.: City Clerk SUBJECT: Renewal of Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program Recommended Motion: Adopt resolution extending the existing DBE Program for an additional year from October 1, 1994, through September 30, 1995. Report Summary: On April 19, 1989, the City adopted a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program in order to satisfy one of the technical requirements for receipt of federal funds for the Quito Road Bridge Replacement Project (Capital Project No. 905). The Program is intended to facilitate the opportunity for minority and female owned businesses to submit bids and receive awards of contracts on federally funded projects. The Program is required to run during the same period as the federal fiscal year of October 1 through September 30. The expiration date of the DBE Program has already been extended to September 30, 1994, and a further extension is necessary to September 30, 1995. No changes to the Program itself are being made. It is anticipated the City will continue to renew this program to retain eligibility to receive federal funds on various projects. The enactment of the ISTEA Program, which is expected to fund the Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road Improvement Project (Capital Project No. 924), the Pierce Road Bridge Replacement Project (Capital Project No. 953), and the grant for the rehabilitation of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, will require continuation of the Program for the foreseeable future. Fiscal Impacts: Adds nominal costs to the bid, award and contract administration work for the project. Follow Up Actions: The resolution will be sent to the CalTrans Office of Local Programs. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The DBE Program would expire on September 30. Loss of grant funds for the above mentioned projects would exceed $1.5 million if the program is not continued. Attachments: Proposed resolution with attached DBE Program. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO, 2�k MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 7, 1994 ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS AGENDA ITEM / CITY MGR.: DEPT. HEAD: SUBJECT: Warner Hutton House Improvements, Capital Project No. 9301 - Authorization to proceed with supplemental improvements via sole source purchases and approval of project budget amendment Recommended Motion(s): 1. Move to award a sole source construction contract to Louis Leto Construction in the amount of $24,489 to install four site structures at the Warner Hutton House pursuant to certain determinations authorized under Section 2- 45.120(b)(4) of the City Code. 2. Move to approve a sole source purchase from Dalton Pavilions, Inc. of Telford, PA in the amount of $8,139 for a specified gazebo structure pursuant to certain determinations authorized under Section 2- 45.120(b) (2) of the City Code. 3. Move to adopt Resolution No. 93 -25.17 increasing the appropriations for and amending the budget of Capital Project No. 9301. Report Summary: Because of th awarded for the initial phase o Warner Hutton House, the Traffic City to proceed with some of the not a part of the initial phase: committed to fund installation include the gazebo at the re encircling the rear patio area, to the house, and the trellis at e extremely low contract amount f landscaping improvements at the Authority has agreed to allow the elements of the master site plan Specifically, the Authority has of the four site structures which ar of the property, the arbor the pergola off the side entrance the side entry onto the property. Plans for the four structures w project landscape architect and Heritage Preservation Commission has solicited two sole source bids a contractor to install the four manufacturer of the gazebo for the that structure. ere recently finalized by the reviewed and approved by the on August 9. Since then, staff for the improvements, one from structures, and one from the direct purchase and delivery of The bid for the installation of the structures was obtained from Louis Leto Construction, a local contractor who worked with the project architect during the final design to verify the feasibility of certain design features and to provide value engineering services in order to keep the cost of the four structures within an acceptable budget. His bid for the installation of the four structures is $24,489. The second bid was obtained from Dalton Pavilions, Inc. of Telford, PA, the manufacturer of the specified gazebo. Their quote for the gazebo is $8,139. Traffic Authority staff has reviewed the final plans and the two sole source bids and has approved them both. At this point in time, work on the initial phase landscaping improvements has stopped pending a certain amount of progress on the four site structures. Rather than delay the project any longer than is necessary, it is recommended that the Council award a sole source construction contract for the four site structures to Louis Leto Construction in the amount of $24,489, and approve a sole source purchase of the gazebo structure from Dalton Pavilions, Inc. in the amount of $8,139. The Council has the authority to approve both sole source purchases by making certain determinations prescribed under Section 2- 45.120(b) of the City Code. For the sole source construction contract, it is recommended that the Council determine that utilization of the competitive bidding process would not be likely to result in a lower price to the City from another responsible bidder, and would add unnecessary expense and delay to the project under the circumstances. For the sole source purchase of the gazebo, it is recommended that the Council determine that the item required by the City can only be obtained from a single source. If the Council approves the above recommendations and the sole source purchases, a Notice to Proceed with the installation of the four site structures will be issued to the contractor within a couple of days. Work will then begin on the arbor, pergola and trellis structures while the gazebo is ordered and prepared for delivery. Approximately two weeks worth of work on the site structures is necessary before work on the landscape improvements can resume. Ultimately, the entire project should be complete before the end of October. Lastly, it is recommended that the Council approve the attached resolution to increase the appropriation and amend the budget for Capital Project No. 9301. The resolution is necessary for two reasons. First, it reappropriates project revenues and expenditures which were budgeted last fiscal year, but which will not be realized until this fiscal year. Second, it increases total project revenues and expenditures by $50,000 to account for the supplemental work authorized by the Traffic Authority. It should be noted that none of these actions have any net effect, either positive or negative, on the City's General Fund. Fiscal Impacts: As noted above. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: If the Council does not make the recommended determinations to approve the sole source purchases, then the sole source purchases will not be approved. The Council may still approve the supplemental improvements and direct staff to solicit competitive bids for the work, but as noted above, it is doubtful that this would result in a lower price from a responsible bidder and would add at least another two months to the project schedule in order to prepare bidding documents, advertise and award contracts for the work. There would also be additional direct costs incurred by the City to competitively bid the project. If the Council does not adopt the budget amendment resolution, it will not be approved. Technically, there would be no funds budgeted in the current fiscal year to complete either the initial phase or supplemental improvements. Follow Up Actions:.A standard construction contract and Notice to Proceed will be issued to the contractor to install the four site structures. The order for the gazebo will be placed. Attachments: 1. Resolution No. 93- 25.17. Plans for the site structures are available in my office and will be presented at your meeting. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL 2-� �t AGENDA ITEM -7 MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 7, 1994 CITY MGR.: ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEAD: �',' SUBJECT: Approval'of Cooperative Agreement with City of San Jose and Santa Clara County Traffic Authority for installation of a traffic signal at Quito Road /Westmont Avenue /Sousa Lane Recommended Motion(s): Move to approve the Cooperative Agreement and authorize staff to advertise the project for bids. Report Summary: Attached is a proposed Cooperative- Agreement between the Cities of Saratoga and San Jose and the Santa Clara County Traffic Authority which specifies the terms and conditions for jointly signalizing the intersection of Quito Road and Westmont Avenue /Sousa Lane. The agreement culminates several months of negotiations among staffs of the three agencies and is presented for Council's review and approval. According to San Jose staff, the intersection has satisfied traffic signal warrants for several years. However, because of its relatively low accident rate and the volume of traffic which travels through the intersection, it has not ranked high on the City's signal priority list until now. This change in priority is primarily due to the modifications which have occurred on Quito Road as a result of the construction of Route 85. A number of residents of both Saratoga and San Jose have expressed concerns about the safety of the intersection with the lack of a signal, particularly parents of students who attend Westmont High School. Responsibility for the intersection is shared equally by the two cities. However, the agreement stipulates that San Jose will contribute $67,000 and the Traffic Authority $10,000 ($77,000 total) towards the cost of the signal. Saratoga would bear responsibility for any costs in excess of $77,000 up to $97,000. San Jose has also agreed to prepare the plans and specifications for the project in exchange for Saratoga advertising, awarding and overseeing construction of the signal. Also, in order to expedite the installation of the signal, San Jose will contribute all of the signal hardware which they currently have in stock, but deduct the cost of the hardware from their $67,000 share of the project costs. • If the Council approves the Cooperative Agreement, staff is prepared to advertise the project immediately. If so authorized, a construction contract will be ready for award at your first meeting in October. Because the signal hardware is already on hand, the contractor could then start work very shortly after the contract award, and it is likely that the signal could be operational by the middle of November. It is proposed that San Jose would bear maintenance responsibility for the signal and invoice Saratoga for 50% of the maintenance and operational costs. Fiscal Impacts: The Cooperative Agreement is predicated on the notion that the signal construction cost will not exceed $97,000 and hence, that Saratoga's share will not exceed $20,000 (a likely scenario) . The City's share will eventually be recouped through an exaction imposed on an approved tentative map for a six lot subdivision on Sousa Lane (SD 89 -016), see attached. Until such time as the subdivider processes the final map, (the life of the Tentative Map can be extended to November 14, 1997), the City will front the subdivider's share. It is proposed to do this by utilizing a soon to be received, unanticipated reimbursement of $18,000 from the City of San Jose. The reimbursement stems from a State grant which San Jose received for work performed on Prospect Road in 1992 and in which Saratoga financially participated. If the project proceeds and a construction contract is brought to you for award, a budget amendment resolution reflecting the above will be prepared for your adoption as well. _ Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: Either the proposed Cooperative Agreement will not be approved or staff will not be authorized to advertise the project for bids. Council may propose amendments to the agreement. However if the agreement is not approved, the project cannot move forward. Follow Up Actions: The Cooperative Agreement will be signed and transmitted to the City of San Jose and the Traffic Authority. Staff will advertise the project for bids. Attachments: 1. Proposed Cooperative Agreement. 2. Portion of Planning Commission Resolution approving the Tentative Map of Application No. SD 89 -016. SARATOGA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. Z r , CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: oil MEETING DATE: September 7, 1994 ORIGINATING DEPT.: Community Develo m t CITY MGR. APPROVAL SUBJECT: V -94 -005 Martin; 14167 Squirrel Hollow Lane Appeal of Planning Commission decision to approve in part and deny in part an application for a Variance to the permitted floor area to allow a 397 sq. ft. addition to an existing 3,871 sq. ft. residence. The Planning Commission approved 302 sq. ft. of the proposed addition and denied 95 sq. ft. RECOMMENDED MOTION Deny the appellant's request and uphold the Planning Commission's action to deny the 95 sq. ft. kitchen addition and approve the 302 sq. ft. wine cellar and tasting room addition adjacent to the garage. REPORT SUMMARY Proposal: On July 13, 1994, the Planning Commission reviewed the applicant's floor area Variance request to construct a 95 sq. ft. kitchen addition and a 302 sq. ft. wine cellar and tasting room adjacent to the garage to an existing 3,871 sq. ft. two story residence. The existing structure is considered non - conforming in that it currently exceeds the site's maximum permitted floor area by 1,151 sq. ft. Variance approval is necessary to allow the structure to further exceed the permitted floor area. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission made a unanimous motion to continue the Public Hearing to July 27, 1994 and directed staff to prepare a resolution that included the following: Findings to support the approval of the 302 sq. ft. wine cellar addition adjacent to the garage beneath the existing second story cantilever. The Commissioners.felt a special circumstance was present to support this portion of the addition in that the proposed construction is beneath an existing second story cantilever and will not increase the building envelope. Findings denying the 95 sq. Commission could not make the this portion of the addition building envelope. ft. kitchen addition. The Variance findings to support since it would increase the At the July 27, 1994 meeting the Planning Commission adopted Resolution V -94 -005 (3 -0 Asfour absent) approving the wine cellar Martin Appeal September 7, 1994 Page 2 addition and denying the kitchen addition. Applicant's Appeal: The applicants are appealing the Planning Commission's decision denying the kitchen addition. They feel that both the creek and the Santa Clara Valley Water District flood control easement present a physical circumstance that unfairly penalize them in the calculation of the property's maximum permitted floor area. There was considerable discussion at the Planning Commission meeting regarding the City Code requirement for the calculation of the allowable floor area and the penalties for the site's average slope and the flood control easement. A complete analysis of how the maximum permitted floor area is calculated is within the Zoning Ordinance Requirements section of the attached staff report dated July 13, 1994. Fiscal Impacts: None Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: The property owners of all properties within 500 feet of the subject property were mailed notice of this application. A notice was also published in the Saratoga News. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: Approval of the Variance would allow the applicant to construct both the wine cellar and kitchen additions. Follow Up Actions: Resolution reflecting City Council decision to be placed on the September 21, 1994 meeting agenda. Attachments: 1. Appeal Application 2. Resolution V -94 -005 3. Planning Commission Minutes, dated 7/13/94 and 7/27/94 4. Staff Report dated 7/13/94 5. Plans, Exhibit "A" Date Received: d r/ r l Hearing Date: Fee: 450 Receipt No.: APPEAL APPLICATIOON Name of Appellant:�AVlO ANo-I3864 S � / `IAATIP Address: 14167 SQu1RR8c 14ou4o Lnl S/aRAfi>G/� 9 So ?o Telephone: eG7- 3996 Name of Applicant (if different from Appellant: Project File Number and Address: Y- 54-CoS; MAIWJ: 141G7 Smvll aL 1414LLaa LJJ Decision Being Appealed:-7 DENIAL of SS Sm. Ft. k1rC,4En1 AOOCnpe.1 t-161l`/ -_27, 19 5LI Grounds for Appeal (letter may be attached): 1NE C4LOALAVON of A&L*WASLE 50. FT. QIJFAIRLy PEW4LIZE$ APP1.1'-4 4r. 4 'ME SCvWD EasrrmtaT 'rHE sbPE S0QN%utA C4uSf F�?0UC;jo1J. IF JOE E4S;Er1ENT 14 _bt,0,jU O -MCJ VIA MOLLY ALL of . TUF_ LANO 14,AEA Qz"rAINiMG TIDE IS LOPE IS ELA rnietorCO 744 Er►91.►#..IGSWPE VJOULO 6E 10$rEAO OF 114E CALM?? D 16 %> Am 'my FEw NoMES -1.-A E Tv COU INI LE V A41 JOA CE NE jC,"aL 4-2iAv IPA (StBA& L as Srgw0tK6 In1 cul- p%sd 96CK *Appellant's Signature FAEQU4#Urs IS MINJ -4L. 4"4rljL 6t. "Ave A854 Wr&.f 26ao� V 1 SWAL,//A0s7Ni7C 1, sPEclac n616Iivaxi 161we IT C4A C14 L7 Bescew W E me *Please do not sign until application is presented at City offices. If you wish specific people to be notified of this appeal, please list them on a separate sheet. THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY CLERK, 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE, SARATOGA CA 95070, BY 5:00 P.M. WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION. RESOLUTION NO. V -94 -005 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Martin; 14167 Squirrel Hollow Lane WHEREAS, 'the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Variance approval to allow a 397 sq. ft. single - story addition to an existing 3,871 sq. ft. two -story residence. The maximum allowable floor area for the parcel is 2,720 sq. ft. The existing structure is considered legal non - conforming in that it exceeds the maximum permitted floor area by 1,151 sq. ft. Variance approval is necessary to allow the structure to further exceed the permitted floor area; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the applicants did not meet the burden of proof required to support said Variance application in part, and the Planning Commission makes the following findings denying the appli- cants' request for a 95 sq. ft. kitchen addition: (a) Special circumstances applicable to the property exist in that the Saratoga Creek and a S.C.V.W.D. easement bisect the property; however, strict enforcement of the specified regulations will not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district in that the formula .for calculating the average slope of a property is applied the same to all properties with creeks, and S.C.V.W.D. easements are required to be deducted from the net site area of all properties in Saratoga; and (b) That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district, in that the formula for calculating the maximum permitted floor area is based on the size and slope of' each individual parcel and specifically requires the deduction of S.C.V.W.D. easements from the net site area. WHEREAS, the applicants met the burden of proof required to support said Variance application in part, and the Planning Commission makes the following findings approving the applicants' request to construct a 302 sq. ft. wine cellar and tasting room off of the garage beneath a cantilevered portion of the second story: (a) That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified regulations would cause undo hardship and deprive the applicant of File No. V -94 -005; 14167 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LANE privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district, in that the addition is proposed underneath an existing substantial second story portion of the home and will not create nor intensify the amount of current lot coverage. The second story is currently supported by significant post structures, and the underfloor area is partially enclosed as a patio with lattice "walls ". The end result of allowing this existing area to be enclosed will not visually intensify the struc- ture's nonconformity.; The location and configuration of the existing house itself is therefore a special circumstance. (b) That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district, in that the existing house was in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance in effect when it was constructed and the proposed addition will not visually intensify the structure's nonconformity. (c) That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Martin for Variance consideration is approved in part and denied in part subject to the following conditions: 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A ", incorporated by reference with the elimination of the kitchen addition. 2. Prior to submittal for Building or Grading Permits, the following shall be submitted to Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporat- ing this Resolution as a separate plan page. b. All applicable requirements /conditions of the.Resolution (e.g. modifications to plans) shall be noted on the plans. C. Revised plans showing the elimination of the 95 sq. ft. kitchen addition. s File No. V -94 -005; 14167 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LANE 3. No structure shall be permitted in any easement. 4. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. I, 5. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossi- ble to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. section 2: Applicant shall sign the agreement to these conditions within 30 days of the passage of this resolution or said resolution shall be void. Section 3. Construction must be commenced ithin 24 months or approval will expire. Ii Section 4. All applicable requirements oflthe State,. County, City and other Governmental entities must be i5et. Section 5. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion, State of California, this 27th day of July 1994 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Kaplan, Caldwell, and Murakami NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Asfour Chaiiman, jPlanning Commiss ATTEST: �-j�Civ""' "'►- SecrebAry, Planning Commission The foregoing conditions are hereby accepted. Signature of Applicant Date PIANNING COI DAMION MINUM JULY 27, 1994 PAGE - 2 - Page 8, paragraph 3 amended to read: "Commissioner Caldwell questioned how staff derived a+ the $71 fee associated with .the " he temporary sign or banner request.... Page 8, paragraph 8 amended to read: "Community Development Director Curds commented that when you have a sign on a vehicle that is parked in a legal parking space there really is not much you can do k'ai3ce code " THE MOTION CARRIED 3-0 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: CALDWELL; KAPLAN, MURAKAMI; NOES: NONE; ABSTAIN: NONE; ABSENT: ASFOUR. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS No comments were offered. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on July 22, 1994. Technical Corrections to Packet No corrections were noted. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. V -94 -005 - Martin; 14167 Squirrel Hollow Lane; request for Variance approval to allow a 397 square foot single -story addition to an existing 3,871 square foot two -story residence. The maximum allowable floor area for the parcel is 2,720 square feet. The existing structure is considered legal non - conforming in that it exceeds the maximum permitted floor area by 1,151 square feet. Variance approval is necessary to allow the structure to further exceed the permitted floor area per Chapter 15 of the City code. The subject property is approximately 19,285 gross square feet (7,800 net square feet) and is located within an R -1- 12,500 zone district (cont. from 7 -13 -94 to present a revised Resolution). Commissioner Caldwell requested that agenda item one be pulled from the agenda. She recommended that the resolution be strengthened which reflects some of the discussion that the Commission had at its last meeting. The first suggestion that she had was on page one dealing with special circumstances applicable to this property. She recommended that one of the circumstances read that the location of the existing structure on the property, principally the home and the location of the porch area, is in existence and would not be an intensification of the use of property. For that reason, the Commission was not acerbating the impervious coverage. It is further to be reflected that the impervious coverage would not be intensified. She stated that she mentioned her comments to staff and requested that staff draft language to address her, comments. PLANNING COMUAMION MSS JULY 27, 1994 PAGE -3- Planner Walgren recommended that page 2 of the first finding be amended to read as follows: COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL,/KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. V -94 -005 AS AMENDED. THE MOTION CARRIED 3-0 (CHAIRMAN ASFOUR ABSENT). 2. DR -94 -024 - Roberts, 14350 Douglass Lane (Parcel 1); iequest for Deign Review approval to demolish an existing single - family home and construct a new 5,638 square foot two -story residence in its place pursuant to Article 15-45 of the Saratoga Zoning Ordinance. The subject parcel is 1.25 net acres in size and is located within an R -1- 20,000 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He informed the Commission that a letter was received from Mr. Robert Woolsey, 19952 Durham Court, expressing concern regarding the potential incompatibility of the proposed 5,000+ square foot homes with the existing homes with the existing homes on -Douglass Lane and Durham Court. Since the report has gone out, staff has received several additional letters from: a resident at 14150 Douglass Lane expressing concern regarding the architectural capability and the size of homes; Mr. Spencer Azala, 19897 Douglass Lane, expressing concern regarding the compatibility of the homes and the protection of the riparian corridor; Marilyn Berg, 14191 Douglass Lane, expressed concern regarding the compatibility of these homes (parcel 1 and 2) with the existing homes and the protection of the riparian corridor; and Gary Paster, 14230 Douglass Lane, expressed concerns with tree preservation, architectural compatibility and riparian protection. He informed the Commission that an overhead has been prepared with addresses shown on it to reference the different properties which would likely be affected by this proposal. Three Monterey pines are proposed to be removed. Two would need to be removed to accommodate construction and one is being taken out which is outside of construction. The City's arborist has had the opportunity to review the proposal. There is a nine inch DBH coast live oak within the front of the house that Mr. Coate has given a high rating to. As it stands this evening, staff recommends that it be transplanted elsewhere on the site rather than be removed. Staff has had the opportunity to discuss this requirement with the City arborist who felt that the size of the tree and its health could be a successful candidate for transplanting. Commissioner Caldwell stated that based on her land use visit and review of the documents and since the applicant was the same for both agenda items 1 and 2 that, some of the issues may relate to both items and questioned if the Commission should discuss both agenda items 2 and ' 3 at one time. She also felt that the neighbors also may wish to address both -• items. PLANNING COUMSSION bIINUTES JULY 13, 1994 PAGE -4- each of the Commissioners would need to determine what a neighborhood is. However, she sees this request as a two story predominance. Chairman Asfour commented that it was difficult to determine predominance by looking at the drawing unless a site visit has been conducted. He stated that he had no problem in accepting the area as a predominantly two story neighborhood. Commissioner Caldwell commented that she was saddened to see that the existing vineyard was going to be removed. Particularly because she thought that the vineyard served as a nice buffer to the huge home(s). She expressed concerned that the view from the school was going to be one of large homes. Another concern to her was that of another white colored home. She questioned whether condition 10 could be amended to mitigate her concern regarding the protection of the oak trees as follows: 1) the city arborist is to review the landscape plans and if the arborist has any recommendations, the applicant be required to comply with the recommendation regarding planting and irrigation around the oak tree, or 2) that it is stipulated that no water intensive plants, irrigation or trenching to be located within the drip line of the oak tree. Planner Walgren supported the second alternative. Commissioner Murakami stated that he felt that staff's chart was very helpful and that in his site visit of the neighborhood, he did not have a problem with a second story construction. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN /CALDWELL MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR -93 -009, AMENDING CONDITION 10 TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING VERBIAGE: "NO WATER INTENSIVE PLANTS, IRRIGATION OR TRENCHING TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE DRIPLINES OF THE ORDINANCE PROTECTED OAK TREES ON THE PROPERTY'. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (4 -0). 2. V -94 -005 - Martin; 14167 Squirrel Hollow Ln., request for Variance approval to allow a 397 sq. ft. single -story addition to an existing 3,871 sq. ft. two- story residence. The maximum allowable floor area for the parcel is 2,720 sq. ft. The existing structure is considered legal non - conforming in that it exceeds the maximum permitted floor area by 1,151 sq. ft. Variance approval is necessary to allow the structure to further exceed the permitted floor area per Chapter 15 of the City code. The subject property is approximately 19,285 gross sq. ft. (7,800 net sq. ft.) and is located within an R -1- 12,500 zone district. ----------------------------------------------------------------------=----------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. He informed the Commission that staff could not support the request because staff was unable to specify specific circumstances or hardship that apply to this lot that would not apply to other parcels in general. Chairman Asfour questioned if this request could be separated into two issues, one to cover the area that is underneath the deck and the other for the continued expansion. Planner Walgren responded that the request was for a variance and that no design review would be required because it is a single story addition. However, the Planning Commission could PLANNING CONMSSION N [NUTES JULY 13, 1994 PAGE - 5 - separate the two issues in terms of applying the variance findings to one part of the addition rather than the other. However, they were both covered under the same variance. Commissioner Murakami questioned if staff had knowledge if there were any other exceptions made in this area for this type of square footage addition. Planner Walgren responded that he could not recall a recent approval of a variance from the maximum floor area. CHAIRMAN ASFOUR OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:58 P.M. Dave Martin, applicant, informed the Commission that he has lived in his home for the past 25 years. The addition would allow the home to be updated from the stand point of how people live their lives today. The basis for consideration of the variance request were as follows: 1) the extraordinary creek bed and associated flood control district easement impacts the slope calculation, (the lot is basically a flat lot and the actual slope from the front to the rear is under one percent but because of the creek, it ends up calculating to a rigorous formula of 16 percent, pushing numbers out of wac); 2) the proposed modifications were not visible to anyone; 3) he felt strongly that the addition was an important quality (will spend most of family time in the addition and will have more value to potential buyers in the future); and 4) increased tax ramification to the City. The basis for the request stems from the 1% versus 16% slope variance. Oscar Sohns, architect, utilized plans which assisted him in explaining the slope variance problem /calculation. He did not feel that the original intent of the 1987 slope calculation formula covered this situation. He felt that the site was a 1% slope not the 16% slope as identified by staff. Commissioner Caldwell questioned the approximate distance of the planned addition to the creek bed. Mr. Sohns responded that the planned addition was approximately 35 feet away from the creek bed. Commissioner Kaplan questioned if the protrusion for the kitchen was added, would there be an increase in impervious coverage. Mr. Sohns responded that there would not be an increase of impervious coverage (building over the brick that currently exists). Chairman Asfour questioned staff's view regarding Mr. Sohns' slope calculation. Planner Walgren addressed the slope calculation formula (basic requirement is to take the gross site area, deduct from gross site area-any water district easements,- landslides, or road right of ways, leaving you with a net, put this figure into a table in the Zoning Ordinance which deducts further for the average slope). What the applicant has done was a series of variations where either the Water District easement was not deducted from the gross site area or the slope was not deducted or the combination of the two. The formula adopted in 1987 does take into account lots that have flat pads and then a steep incline to the back or a creek exists on the property (the average of the overall parcel), bringing the slope up relatively high. If the creek was not on the parcel and the slope of the lot were similar to PLANNING CONMSSION NE NUTES JULY 13, 1994 PAGE - 6 - the top red line of the plans provided by Mr. Sohns, slopes of less than 10% would not apply as a deduction. Chairman Asfour questioned if the slope or the creek with an easement did not exist, would the applicant be able to expand as requested. Planner Walgren responded that the applicant would be allowed to expand if the slope and creek easement did not exist and that the floor area would be closer to 4,440 square feet. Commissioner Caldwell stated that although the Commission was not around in 1987 when the slope calculation was implemented, she felt that there was a sense of policy reasons behind some of the provisions. She requested staffs rendition of the policy reasoning for deducting Santa Clara Valley Water District easements from the site. Planner Walgren responded that the Water District easement was similar to the landslide easement which the City has identified in the Geotechnical Terrain Map. These areas were not suitable for development and would be deemed appropriate to eliminate them from the net site area calculation. Community Development Director Curtis stated that topographic features are also taken into account, specifically the creek. If you take a floor area calculation on the entire site, you could get a vary large home on a small building pad. He felt that it would be disproportionate to the area that is build. With the calculation formula, you try to fit a reasonably sized house on a reasonably sized building area. If you remove the creek from the calculation, then you have to apply the removal of the creek to others. P Commissioner Murakami questioned if the basic deduction was for safety purposes (e.g., flooding or erosion of the land). Community Development Director Curtis responded that he did not believe that the floor area dedication was for safety purposes because setback would mitigate safety issues. Mr. Sohns informed the Commission that the applicant proposed to build a bridge and a gazebo by the creek and that the Santa Clara Valley Water District has previously granted its approval of the request. However, it may be precluded with this addition. He felt that this request was a unique one and requested Commission consideration. Chairman Asfour commented that if the Commission was not able to make the legal findings for granting a variance, it could not approve one. COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN/MURAKAMI MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:23 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (4 -0). Commissioner Kaplan questioned staff regarding their statement that the proposed addition would not increase the amount of coverage. She questioned if the kitchen extension increased the coverage of the lot. Planner Walgren responded that the increase in lot coverage would include hard surface area (e.g., decks, brick patios), so that the actual lot coverage would not exceed current coverage (coverage on top of coverage). The overall hard surface percentage would not be affected by the addition. PLANNING CON MSSION NQNUTES JULY 13, 1994 PAGE - 7 - Chairman Asfour stated that there were two issues at hand, one being the actual coverage underneath the existing deck and the kitchen expansion. For the purpose of discussion, he requested that they be considered separately. He could make the findings for the enclosure under the deck because enclosure of the deck would not have an impact but was having a hard time making the findings for the kitchen extension. Commissioner Kaplan stated that the Commission does not have the authority to undo the calculation that staff has made utilizing the slope calculation formula. Commissioner Murakami supported the comments as stated by Chairman Asfour. However, he would be inclined to support the kitchen addition. Commissioner Caldwell commented that the City has always respected the creek areas and the easements drawn up by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. She did not know how the Commission could deviate. Chairman Asfour questioned if findings could be made for the addition over the deck area. Planner Walgren responded that findings could be drafted for the underfloor area and that special circumstance may be that of configuration of the existing house itself (that portion of the addition is merely filling in what is already there in envelop and would not necessarily relate to variance finding to the city slope or net site area requirements). If the Planning Commission was inclined to support a portion or all of the variance, he recommended that it be done on that basis rather than tieing the variance to site conditions. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. V -94 -005 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE VARIANCE APPLY ONLY TO THE COVERED AREA AND NOT THE KITCHEN EXPANSION WITH THE FINDING THAT THERE EXISTS SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ARE PUT OVER THE PROPERTY, PARTICULARLY THE EXISTING CLOSED STRUCTURE WHICH WILL HOUSE THE ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE AREA. Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that staff reviewed the variance in several ways and that staff was not able to make findings. The problem staff has with the use was that of infill because it could get out of hand with a precedent being established. COMMISSIONERS ASFOUR/MURAKAMI AMENDED THEIR MOTION TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ITS JULY 27, 1994 MEETING AND DIRECTED STAFF TO RETURN WITH A RESOLUTION INCORPORATING THE APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE FOR THE COVERED AREA ONLY, EXCLUDING THE KITCHEN EXPANSION WITH THE FINDING AS STATED IN THE ORIGINAL MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (4 -0). 3. AZO -94 -001 - City of Saratoga; An ordinance of the City of Saratoga amending Section 15 -30 by amending the Code of the City of Saratoga relating REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: V -94 -005; 14167 Squirrel Hollow Lane Applicant /Owner. Martin Staff Planner: Lynette Stanchina Date: July 13, 1994 APN: 397-26-020 Director Approval: 14167 SQUIRKEL HOLLOW LANE File No. V -94 -005; 14167 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LANE EXECUTIVE 8UlIIRY CASE HISTORY: Application filed: 05/02/94 Application complete: 05/.02/94 Notice published: 06/29/94 Mailing completed: 06/30/94 Posting completed: 06/23/94 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for Variance approval to allow a 397 sq. ft. single -story addition to an existing 3,871 sq. ft. two -story residence. The maximum allowable floor area for the parcel is 2,720 sq. ft. The existing structure is considered legal non - conforming in that it exceeds the maximum permitted floor area by 1,151 square feet. However, it was lawfully constructed prior to the adoption of the current floor area regulations. Variance approval is necessary to allow the structure to further exceed the permitted floor area per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is approximately 19,285 gross sq. ft. (7,800 net sq. ft.) and is located within an R -1- 12,500 zone district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny the request by adopting the attached Variance resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Analysis 2. Resolution V -94 -005 3. Plans, Exhibit "A" File No. V -94 -005; 14167 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LANE STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R -1- 12,500 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential PARCEL SIZE: 19,285 gross sq. ft. 7,800 net sq. ft. (excluding S.C.V.W.D. easement) AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 16% (of gross site area) MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Horizontal wood siding to match existing. PROPOSAL CODE REQUIREMENT/ ALLOWANCE LOT COVERAGE: 71% (5,528 sq. ft.)* HEIGHT: NA SIZE OF STRUCTURE: Existing 1st floor: 1,600 2nd floor: 1,681 garage: 590 Proposed 1st floor: 397 TOTAL: 4,268 SETBACKS: Front: NA Rear: >100 Right Side: 10 Left Side: 10 sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. Front: ft. Rear: ft. Right Side: ft. Left Side: 55% 2,720 sq. ft. 25 ft. 35 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. * The percentage of lot coverage is existing non - conforming based on the net site area. The proposed addition would not increase the amount of coverage. PROJECT DISCUSSION: Proposal: The applicants are requesting a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance allowable floor area regulations to allow the construc- tion of a 95 sq. ft. addition to the kitchen and a 302 sq. ft. wine cellar and tasting room off of the garage beneath a cantilevered portion of the second story. The proposed additions are well designed, blend in with the existing structure, and are consistent with the Design Review regulations. File No. V -94 -005; 14167 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LANE In addition, they are proposing to convert 64 sq. ft. of existing attic area to living area to construct a laundry room. Since no exterior modifications are proposed as part of the laundry room construction and the space as it exists counts as floor area (in that it has an existing interior height of at least 7.5 feet) , a Variance is not required for this portion of the proposal. Therefore, the applicants.%will be permitted to construct the laundry room regardless of the outcome of this Variance request. Background: The subject property has a gross site area of approximately 19,285 square feet and is located on Squirrel Hollow Lane within a R -1- 12,500 zone district. Saratoga Creek bisects the property and approximately 60 percent of the property falls within a Santa Clara Valley Water District (S.C.V.W.D.) easement. Other than the creek banks the site is generally level. The existing house is approximately 3,871 square feet where the maximum permitted floor area pursuant to the current code is 2,720 square feet. The existing site coverage is approximately 71 percent of the net site area where 55 percent is the maximum permitted. The house is located on the front portion of the property adjacent to the creek and the rear half of the property ,is inaccessible due to the location of the creek. In 1986 the property owners received permission from the S.C.V.W.D. to construct a spa, deck, patio and landscaping improvements partially within this easement. Prior to 1987 the Zoning Ordinance did not require S.C.V.W.D. easements to be excluded from the net site area and the allowable floor area was simply a maximum number based on the particular Zoning District the property was located (The maximum permitted in the R -1- 12,500 was 4,000 sq. ft.). This explains why the existing structure exceeds the maximum permitted floor area and the allowable lot coverage. Zoning Ordinance Requirements: The following is the method used for calculating the allowable floor area for this property pursuant to Chapter 15 -45 of the City Code. Gross Site Area = 19,285 sq. ft. Net Site Area = 7,800 sq. ft. (Section 15- 06.620 requires the deduction of S.C.V.W.D. easements) Average Slope of Gross Site Area 16% (Pursuant to Section 15- 06.630) When the average slope of the gross site area is greater than 10 percent, Section 15- 45.030 requires a reduction of the net site area for floor area calculation purposes. At 16% slope, a 220 reduction of the net site area is required. M 5? >tt r , File No. V -94 -005; 14167 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LANE 7,800 sq. ft. x .22 = 1,716 sq. ft. 7,800 sq. ft. - 1,716 sq. ft. = 6,084 sq. ft. = Adjusted site Area Allowable Floor Area is 2,720 sq. ft. Variance Findings: The applicants feel the creek location and in particular the unusually large S.C.V.W.D. flood control easement create a special circumstance. They do not feel they should be penalized for the slope of their property since it is a result of the creek. Their architect has evaluated the floor area calcula- tion using several different alternatives (see sheet A -5 of Exhibit A). None of the alternatives used are consistent with the way the Zoning Ordinance requires the maximum permitted floor-area to be calculated. Since the S.C.V.W.D. flood control easement is unusually large (typically the flood control easements are contained by the top of the banks) , staff does agree that it could be considered a hardship to exclude the entire area from the net site area for the purposes of calculating the floor area. Therefore, staff recalculated the allowable floor area by deducting only the easement area between the top of the banks (1,650 sq. ft.) making the net site area equal to 17,635. After calculating the slope reduction the allowable floor area is 3,880 sq. ft. The proposed 397 sq. ft. addition would still exceed this amount by 388 sq. ft. Based on the above discussions, staff cannot be supportive of their request to exceed the maximum permitted floor area and is recom- mending denial of the Variance. Granting of the Variance would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limita- tions on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zone district in that the formula for calculating the maximum permitted floor area is based on the size and slope of each individual parcel and specifically requires the deduction of S.C.V.W.D. easements from the net site area. Therefore, staff recommends the Planning Commission deny the applicants' request for a Variance to exceed the maximum permitted floor area. RECOMMENDATION• Adopt Resolution V-94-005 denying the applicant's request. RESOLUTION NO. V -94 -005 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Martin; 14167 Squirrel Hollow Lane WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Variance- approval to allow a 397 sq. ft. single - story addition to an existing 3,871 sq. ft. two -story residence. The maximum allowable floor.area for the parcel is 2,720 sq. ft. The existing structure.is considered legal non - conforming iri that it exceeds the maximum permitted floor area by 1,151 sq. ft. Variance approval is necessary to allow the structure to further exceed the permitted floor area; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support said Variance application,. and the Planning Commission makes the following findings: (a) That there are special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surround- ings, in that Saratoga Creek and a S.C.V.W.D. easement bisect the property; however, strict enforcement of the specified regulations will not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district in that the formula for calculating the average slope of a property is applied the same to all properties with creeks, and S.C.V.W.D. easements are required to be deducted from the net site area of all properties in Saratoga; and (b) That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district, in that the formula, for calculating the maximum permitted floor area is based'on the size and slope of each individual parcel and specifically requires the deduction of S.C.V.W.D. easements from the net site area. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits, submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Martin for Variance approval be and the same is hereby denied. Section 2. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of M1 � File No. V -94 -005; 14167 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LANE Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commis- sion, State of California, this 13th day of July 1994, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Secretary, Planning. Commission Chairman, Planning Commission SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2-4 Z� AGENDA ITE MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 7, 1994 CITY MGR.: ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEAD SUBJECT: Approval of Agreement with West Valley Sanitation District for Storm Water Program Management Services Recommended Motion(s): Move to approve the agreement and authorize its execution by the Mayor. Report Summary: Attached for Council's review and approval is a proposed agreement with the West Valley Sanitation District for Storm Water Program Management Services. The agreement is similar to existing agreements that the District has with the Cities of Campbell and Monte Sereno and the Town of Los Gatos. Staff is proposing to enter into this agreement so the City's storm water program can be coordinated and managed jointly with those of the other three West Valley Cities. As the initial five year NPDES Permit cycle enters its final year, efforts are currently underway in each City to develop Storm Water Management Plans which will form the basis for the next NPDES Permit to be issued by the Regional Board in October of 1995. Preliminary indications are that the new NPDES Permit will offer to each City as a Co- Permittee under the Permit, greater flexibility to choose individual NPS control strategies which are deemed appropriate for each City. However, along with this greater flexibility, will come the responsibility for additional reporting, documentation and administrative efforts. It is increasingly apparent to me that the current staffing level in the Public Works Department is insufficient to adequately carry out the multitude of responsibilities that come with this Program. Similar observations have been made by my counterparts at the District and the other three cities. We also see advantages in coordinating all four cities' programs since many of the storm water pollution issues are common to each city. And, as you know, similar efforts have been successful with the Solid Waste and Animal Control Programs. If the Council approves the proposed agreement as I am recommending, the District would take the lead role in developing a coordinated West Valley Storm Water Program. The District would retain contract staff to manage the Program and the Program would be overseen by a Management Committee composed of one staff member from each City. Program costs would be shared by the four Cities using the same funding formula as is used for the Countywide Program. The District Board is scheduled to approve the agreement on September 14 and the agreement would go into effect on September 19. Fiscal Impacts: Initial year program costs are estimated to be $65,618, of which Saratoga would pay $19,489. There are sufficient funds budgeted in Activity 20 (Water Quality Management) to cover these costs. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The agreement would not be approved and Saratoga would not participate in the development of a joint West Valley Storm Water Program. The City would continue to operate its program independently without sufficient staffing. Follow Up Actions: The agreement will be signed and transmitted to the District. Attachments: 1. Proposed Agreement. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. ��"� AGENDA ITEM: 1 MEETING DATE: September 13, 1994 ORIGINATING DEPT.: Community Development CITY MGR. SUBJECT: Award of Consulting Services Agreement with Michael Brandman Associates for the preparation of the Odd Fellows Environmental Impact Report Recommended Motion: Move to accept- the attached proposal from Michael Brandman Associates to prepare the Odd Fellows Environmental Impact Report for $64,725 per the attached Scope of Work. Project Summary: The International Order of Odd Fellows has submitted applications to redevelop their senior care and living facility located at 14500 Fruitvale Ave. Their requests include Design Review, Use Permit and General Plan Amendment approval to renovate, redevelop and expand the existing facility. Environmental Determination: Staff's environmental Initial Study determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be necessary for this project. The California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines state that the City is responsible for the preparation of the EIR. The Guidelines allow the City to contract for consultant services to prepare the EIR. The City.selects the consultant, reviews the work and pays for the EIR. The applicant deposits money with the City which is used to pay the consultant.. Therefore, there is no cost to the City in preparing the EIR for the Odd Fellows project. Consultant Selection: On July 20, 1994, .a panel was convened to interview consultants who had responded to the Request for Proposal to prepare the EIR. The,panel consisted of representatives of the City Council _(Councilmember Wolfe), the Planning Commission (Commissioner Caldwell) and Staff (Community Development Director Paul Curtis, Public Works Director Larry Perlin and Associate Planner James Walgren). The panel interviewed 6 consultants and by consensus determined that Michael Brandman Associates was the firm best suited to prepare the EIR. Page 2 Award of Contract for Odd Fellows EIR September 13, 1994 Fiscal Impacts: None. community Development Department staff =will be compensated for staff analysis of the consultant's EIR (20% of cost of EIR) and administrative overhead (22.8% of staff analysis fee). Attachments: 1. Contractual Services Agreement (with attachments) Motion and Vote: